State of Fear - Michael Crichton

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by KingYaba, Aug 13, 2006.

  1. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #1
    Just curious if anyone here at MacRumors has read this book. I read it a few months ago and really enjoyed it. I recomend it to everyone.

    Any thoughts?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #2
    oh it a great book. Shortly after it came out quite a few memeber here started Quoting the book as fact to support arguments.

    I rread it a year or more ago (shortly after it came out) I believe I read it in about 24 hours. (Hey I was at my grandparents house. not much else to do but sleep eat and read) Personally I think it is a great bok like most of Crichton works.
     
  3. njmac macrumors 68000

    njmac

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    No, I haven't read it but I need a good book... thanks for the recommendation.
     
  4. Deefuzz macrumors 6502a

    Deefuzz

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Read it when it came out last year, I remember enjoying it quite a bit.
     
  5. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #5
    What part of this book did all of the above posters like? The global-warming denying? I just don't get why this book is so popular when it distorts the facts and tries to play both sides of the 'fact vs fiction' role. Claiming to be factual while hiding behind its fiction status when it reports faulty information.

    Terrible.
     
  6. ejb190 macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #6
    No worse then Dan Brown stating in the forwards that everything in his books are based on fact. His books only work because of the factual errors.
     
  7. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #7


    OK....I don't see what this has to do with Michael Crichton's book, though. The fact that other authors distort/misrepresent facts when they present them doesn't absolve Crichton of responsibility. He still distorts and misrepresents scientific consensus on global warming.
     
  8. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #8
    i agree. it's a good book but it is not a scientific representation of facts.

    he merely gives half of the facts, cherry picks some publications that fits his views and makes a thrilling story of it. he should not pretend to give a complete scientific valid report.
     
  9. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #9
    I believe you mean well here, but I think you're giving him too much credit with this statement. More like 1% of available data...
     
  10. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #10

    Well if you read some stuff he wrote at the end of the book he stated that the book was a FICTION book and should be treated as such but did welcome everyone to look up his sorces and pull infomation from the sorces but not the book. The Sorces are valid sorces of infomation.

    Those few paragragh where pretty intertaining to read. In there he admits he wrote a fiction book, is only a writer and not an expert on the stuff.

    And yeah who would not cherry pick facts to make a good story. He wasnt trying to write a sciencefic journal or anything or a valid thesis paper on global warming and stuff. Just a great Scifci noval that had some a solid science background in it.

    Even the author stated not to use his book for arguments on global warming and stuff.
     
  11. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #11
    He may say this in his book, yet he gladly accepts money to do speaking engagements where he denounces global warming science as alarmist. No matter how you spin it, he's using his 'reputation' as a science fiction writer to spread disinformation. And as for his 'sources' he obviously is cherry-picking the data that supports his views, rather than taking a totality of information that gives a broad view of a global problem.
     
  12. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #12

    answer the question that you believe global warming is a huge issues. Turth stand there is little evidance supporting the case and it is blown out of propotion by alarmist. Also we dont truelly know how much of the warming of the climiate is human cause and how much is natural. I done a little reasearch on it but he is right some enivormentalist go way out of hand in making it look bigger than it really is and go you have to go this wya with out looking at the cost or damange it may cause.
     
  13. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #13
    I guess I'll take the conclusions of thousands of climate scientists over the histrionics of a fiction writer with an agenda of selling books using alarmist tactics.
     
  14. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #14
    read it again. I said they blow it out of proption making it seem a lot bigger than it really is. And neglate the other part of the facts. It one of those area of science where they level out infomation that hurts there case. Even the climiate scientist will leave out some peice that hurt there case. Rememeber things in this world are really what they seem and the true value of anything is always a lot lower than it really is. I would recomened reading stuff from both sides and form your own conclusion
     
  15. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #15
    There have been literally hundreds of studies on this, but here are a couple you might like to read:

    Science Magazine

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Surprise surprise... Guess who liked Crichton's book enough to give it a journalism award? That's right, I said a journalism award for a work of fiction.

    Why the American Association of Petroleum Geologists of course!
    :D
     
  17. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #17
    I really liked State of Fear.

    The real point of the book (which I think some of you seem to have missed) is not to deny or confirm the theory of "global warming"... although the actual scientific data that Crichton has sprinkled throughout the book does tend to support the idea that while some areas of the globe have warmed, many others have COOLED.

    No, the real point he's trying to make is that given the absence of a human enemy (e.g., no more Soviet Union), certain forces within our society have sought a new means to keep the population under control. They want us to be afraid, so that we will do what they say is necessary to combat that which we fear. In this case, they've chosen a THEORY, the theory of global warming.

    They are using the fear of global warming as a means to take wealth from the nations of the West (US, UK, France, etc.) and transfer it to developing nations (India, China, etc.), which are strangely exempted from environmental regulations or any responsibility for any global warming, and to try to force us to use rail, bicycles, and foot transportation rather than cars, which are (at least, in the US) much cleaner than the billion new cars being built in India and China as we speak. The environment in the US right now is cleaner than it has been at any time in the past 60 years or more.

    Sure, there is evidence that global warming exists. But there is also a lot of evidence that CONTRADICTS the theory... paradoxically, though, such evidence is used in a Douglas Adamsian way to SUPPORT global warming. The argument goes something like this:

    1. If there are a lot more hurricanes than usual (like there were in 2005), obviously that's evidence of global warming.

    2. But if there are LESS hurricanes than usual, or if the winter is more severe than usual, then the same people will say that that is ALSO evidence of global warming... human impact on the environment, they'll say, is responsible for the abnormal weather, even if it happens to be COLDER than usual.

    In other words, global warming advocates can take ANY information about the weather and turn it into "this was caused by global warming". It's a no-win argument for the other side, because a lot of global warming advocates approach the subject with an almost religious (and very NON-scientific) fervor. The weather is ALWAYS changing, and the global warming advocates will explain ANY change in the weather as being caused by global warming.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    And global warming deniers can almost religiously (and completely unscientifically) ignore the entirety of scientific knowledge about global warming and claim that "the weather is ALWAYS changing, there's no proof that global warming is causing it".

    And of course, that's a no-win argument for the other side because a lot of global warming deniers are extremely dogmatic in their insistance that nothing humans can do can change the environment. Sometimes they even write a novel about it.
     
  19. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #19
    So... this looks like a bit of an impasse.

    Personally, I think humans CAN change the environment, but I disagree that the entire planet is warmer, as global warming advocates espouse.

    And the way I look at it, ALL nations should have to comply with the exact same set of rules if we're going to start legislating behavior in an attempt to control "global warming". It's not fair to the US, or the UK, or any other First World nation to have to cut back on emissions if the developing nations (China, India, etc.), which have many, MANY more people, are going to start building a billion new cars that run on leaded gasoline and have no emissions control standards at all. And it's definitely out-of-bounds for us to have to PAY MONEY to these other countries just because we emit more CO2 than they do right now.

    It's really too bad so many scientists are allowing themselves to be browbeaten for not toeing the "conscientious scientist" party line.
     
  20. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #20
    Did you know that mileage standards for cars in China are higher than those for the US (by a wide margin)?

    Also, the fact that the 'environment' is cleaner does not offset higher CO2 emissions in the atmosphere (which is invisible, so doesn't have the same obvious impact as smog does). It's the CO2 that is the problem, and it is a problem that needs to be addressed.
     
  21. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #21
    What kind of data would it take for you to be convinced? Have you read the articl in Science magazine titled "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming"?

    Or how about this study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

    If you'd like more links to the actual hard scientific facts I'd be happy to provide them. It's frustrating when normally rational people get persuaded by science-fiction authors rather than actual scientists doing peer-reviewed, rigorous research.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Not to mention then proceeding to go on a rant about being "browbeaten".

    Clay, you got any stories or proof whatsoever of scientists being "browbeaten" by "global warming advocates"? 'Cause I've got plenty of stories of scientists being "browbeaten" into towing the conservative party line.

    Or were u just POA there?
     
  23. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #23
    I enjoyed this book when i originally read it.

    However on the climate warming and the such. Ok lets say it is causing more hurricanes.

    So what happened that other year when we had 20+ hurricanes, was that global warming as well or was it just random? Wasn't the second highest years worth of hurricanes in 1903 or something.

    Yes i do believe in global warming I just don't understand people saying that specific things show it off when these specific things have happened before and possibly not due to global warming.
     
  24. steamboat26 macrumors 65816

    steamboat26

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    #24
    I read it, and thought it was a good book. Then i learned that this is what Michael Crichton actually thinks about global warming, that it is some conspiracy. But as a writer, i think his books are good, and very easy to read.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Scientists have much more convincing evidence than an increase in hurricanes, which is simply anecdotal evidence. However, it is a convienent straw-man for global warming deniers to latch onto - as we see fairly regularly.
     

Share This Page